By that I mean that while golf has one powerhouse player who wins more big tournaments than anyone else, tennis can't pull that off. Federer is amazing, no doubt about that, but Nadal isn't a challenger yet. There's no real rivalry when everyone expect Federer to win the head to heads on every surface but clay. And they haven't really had an epic match. Tiger hasn't had a lot of epic matches, but he's fun to watch either way. Federer is fun to watch every once in a while because he can do amazing things. But the challenge is always the same because the shape of the court doesn't change (though that isn't to imply that it should, that'd be very odd). Tiger does new amazing things all the time and struggles too. When Sampras was great, other people won tourneys, but Sampras would battle them. Federer just shows up and is better than everyone. In most cases, so is Nadal. No one goes on an amazing run. The last great story in a major tournament - and I mean really great, story for the ages quality, was 2001 Wimbledon when Ivanisecic won.
Tennis needs a foil. Sampras had Agassi and others. Federer has clay. That is not stirring.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment